From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Remember that our Statements of Claim have evolved over   
   time. It started with Jeff Harris and those who claimed for   
   the value of the pot they could have grown during the   
   improper delay but then later claims added the site rent and   
   expenses that were lost during the delay.   
      
   Since it looked like the Crown had not noticed the extra   
   damages claimed, and since we didn't need to have a slow-   
   down of the documentation, Jeff wrote a letter to Case   
   Management Judge Brown:   
      
       July 26 2018   
      
       Justice Brown   
       Case Management Judge   
       Federal Court of Canada   
      
       Your Honour:   
      
       In their Statement of Defence, Defendant will no doubt   
       respond to the claim for damages in the amount of the   
       value of the Applicant's:   
            prescription during any delay which this Court may   
            rule inappropriate..   
      
       I would point out that the Statements of Claim of the   
       most recent Plaintiffs also include the claim for more   
       damages in the amount of the value of the Applicant's:   
            prescription AND LOST SITE RENT AND EXPENSES during   
            any delay which this Court may rule inappropriate..   
      
       I paid $2,300 for my last prescription as have many   
       others paid large sums to doctors willing to take the   
       brunt of Health Canada's harassment.   
      
       Since the Defendant may not have noticed those extra 6   
       words in the most updated claims, I would ask the Court   
       to direct defendant to respond to the claim for lost   
       expenses in its Statement of Defence.   
   ____   
      
   JCT: Today, he got a response telling the judge they didn't   
   want to deal with it:   
      
   Department of Justice   
       Aug 16 2018   
      
       Dear Registrar:   
       Re: HARRIS, All v. HMTQ No: T-1319-17   
      
       I have received the letter from Mr. Harris dated July 26   
       2018 wherein he asks this Court to direct the Attorney   
       General of Canada ("Canada") to respond to the claim for   
       lost expenses raised in other, more recent claims, in   
       Canada's Statement of Defence in the above-mentioned   
       proceeding. Please place this response to that letter   
       before His Honour Judge Brown.   
      
       By Orders dated November 24 and December 11, 2017, the   
       Court designated the Plaintiff's claim as the lead   
       action and placed the other claims in abeyance pending   
       the determination of the Plaintiff's claim. Further to   
       these Orders, Canada intends to file a Statement of   
       Defence which is responsive to the pleadings as set out   
       inthe Amended Statement of Claim filed by the Plaintiff   
       on March 5 2018.   
      
       If the Plaintiff wishes to further amend his Statement   
       of Claim, we would kindly ask that he advise of his   
       intention to do so before Aug 24 2018 so that Canada can   
       properly prepare its Statement of Defence in this   
       proceeding.   
       Yours truly, Wendy Wright.   
      
   JCT: So they figure they get to avoid the issue raised by   
   the latest claimants but maybe not:   
      
   Allan J. Harris, Plaintiff   
      
   Aug 17 2018   
       VIA E-FILING   
      
       Senior Registry Officer   
       Courts Administration Service   
       Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9   
      
       Dear Registrar   
      
       I have received the Defendant's letter dated Aug 16   
       2018. Please place this reply to that response before   
       His Honour Judge Brown, Case Management Judge.   
      
       In response to my request for a Direction that the   
       Statment of Defence deal with issues raised in claims by   
       other later plaintiffs for whom I am Lead Plaintiff,   
       Canada responds that they will not be dealing with the   
       extra claims by the later plaintiffs.   
      
       I cannot effectively be Lead Plaintiff for others if   
       their issues are not going to be dealt with.   
      
       The Crown suggests that I amend my claim if I want their   
       issues to be dealt with but "lost rent and expenses" is   
       not an issue for me, only for them. So amending my claim   
       to ask for what I do not want is not the way to go.   
      
       I would therefore ask for a Direction that should the   
       Defendant be permitted to not file a Statement of   
       Defence against the extra claims of those other later   
       claimants, that   
       1) my action be severed from theirs and that   
       2) the Dec 11 2017 stay on their actions pending the   
       determination on mine be lifted so Canada may now file a   
       Statement of Defence in their actions dealing with the   
       issues the other plaintiffs need dealt with.   
       ______________________________   
       Allan J. Harris, Lead Plaintiff   
      
   JCT: So, as expected, the Crown does not intend to deal with   
   the claim raised in other, more recent claims for lost   
   expenses. Figuring they'd duck it, we asked for a Direction   
   and now they prove we were right to suspect them.   
      
   Since they don't want to deal with the claim of the others,   
   why are the others linked to Jeff's case? Seems that if they   
   don't want to deal with the upgraded claims of the later   
   Plaintiffs, their cases should be severed from Jeff's and   
   the Dec 11 Order staying their claims until Jeff's is   
   determined should be lifted. Now the Crown can file a whole   
   bunch of Statements of Defence or try to appoint a new Lead   
   Plaintiff for them to deal with.   
      
   Sure, Jeff didn't have any rent expenses to claim and   
   doesn't need a defence against that claim from him, but from   
   the others who do and have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)